G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
 
30 July 2021 
(21-5997) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Trade Facilitation  Original: English  
 
REVISITING THE NEED FOR GLOBAL ACTION TO  ELIMINATE  
CONSULARIZATION REQUIREMENTS  
COMMUNICATION FROM BRAZIL, COSTA RICA, EUROPEAN UNION, NORWAY , SWITZERLAND  
AND THE UNITED STATES  
Revision 
The following communication, dated 22 July 2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Brazil, Costa Rica, European Union, Norway , Switzerland  and the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Introduction  
1. This Committee is convening against the  backdrop of an unprecedented global health crisis 
that has disrupted supply chains, hampered cross -border mobility1, and caused a sharp increase in 
trade costs2. At a time when the movement of essential goods is of utmost importance, WTO 
Members must ac celerate implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) so as to reduce 
the time and cost of moving goods across borders and into the hands of citizens, health -care 
professionals, and other essential workers. It has been proven that predictabilit y, simplicity, and 
uniformity in customs and border procedures under the TFA has resulted in greater customs 
efficiency, more effective revenue collection, and better access to new export opportunities for Micro, 
Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME).  
2. As Members, we are now preparing for the first review of the implementation and operation 
of the TFA. Given the current challenges we all face, the first implementation review has taken on 
even greater importance (TFA Article 23.1.6). As we take steps to supp ort global and individual 
economic recovery, we encourage Members to take this opportunity to review their current practices 
with a view to addressing unnecessary restrictions and bottlenecks.  Members should specifically re -
examine their formalities and do cumentation requirements to consider changes that can reduce the 
time and costs for traders, especially MSMEs.  
3. One practice long questioned as to its effectiveness and necessity are consular transactions. 
Consular transactions (sometimes referred to as "co nsularization" or "legalization") are procedures 
that require obtaining from a consul of an importing Member in the territory of the exporting Member 
or a third party, a consular invoice or visa for customs documentation in connection with the 
importation of the good. These consular transactions often require payment of a fee or charge that 
is sometimes a specific fee, sometimes a fee per document, and other times an ad valorem fee 
based on the value of the shipment. Consularization requirements thus place additional costs and 
delays on traders without contributing to legitimate customs -related processes and are precisely the 
type of bureaucratic red tape that the TFA seeks to eliminate.  
 
 The only change in relation to the previous version is the inclusion of the European Union  as a 
co-sponsor.  
1 World Trade Organization, Cross -Border Mobility, COVID -19, And Global Trade , 25 August 2020, 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/mobility_report_e.pdf . 
2 World Trade Organization, Trade Costs in Time of A Global Pandemic , 12 August 2020, 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/trade_costs_report_e.pdf . G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4. Recalling previous efforts3, we call on Members to eliminate consulari zation requirements as 
one action that Members can take to fulfil their TFA Article 10.1 commitment to reduce and 
eliminated formalities.  
Eliminating Consularization through Implementation of TFA Article 10.1  
5. TFA Article 10.1 obligates Members to review t heir import, export, and transit formalities and 
documentation requirements with a view to minimizing their incidence and complexity.4 The purpose 
is to ensure that these requirements are as simple and efficient as possible and eliminate trade 
practices t hat are duplicative, no longer necessary, or incur burdensome costs for traders. It is not 
credible to believe that consularization would withstand a review under the obligations set forth in 
TFA Article 10.1, given that consularization, as explained in mo re detail below, unduly burdens the 
private sector in exchange for little to no tangible benefits for any parties involved other than the 
consular office.  
The High Cost of Consularization  
6. There is no legitimate trade enforcement purpose served by requirin g traders through 
consularization to have invoices, bills of lading, or certificates of origin stamped or signed by foreign 
ministries or consulates as part of a Member's import process. Consularization requirements:  
• add unnecessary costs, contributing to higher prices for importers and consumers. In 
some cases, consular fees amount to hundreds of dollars per shipment, which can exceed 
the invoice value of smaller consignments;  
 
• cause unnecessary, time -consuming delays, not only as a result of the stamping and 
signing process, but also as a result of the need to travel to an embassy or consulate, 
which may not always be located in the same city or country as the exporter, and the 
need to accommodate the working hours of the consular office. Such delays are g enerally 
unacceptable in an age where the delivery expectations of customers are demanding; and  
 
• all too often present opportunities for corruption, because of the inherent lack of 
transparency associated with the procedures and the frequent practice of pa ying cash for 
this formality, often without a clear basis for how fees will be calculated.  
 
7. While these impacts have been known for a long time, it is now more difficult, expensive, and 
unsafe to travel to an embassy or consulate to have documents consular ized than it has ever been. 
At a time when countries are desperate for free and fair access to personal protective equipment 
and medical supplies, requiring that importers visit or mail documents to foreign ministries and 
consulates is an egregious waste o f resources. Governments and businesses around the world have 
recognized the need to close offices, including consulates, to reduce in -person contact and mitigate 
viral spread. Customs and border operators have followed suit to automate processes whenever 
possible.  
 
3 The 2008 United States and Uganda co -sponsored Prohibiting Consularization Requirements: Fulfilling 
A Longstanding Trade Facilitation Objective  (TN/TF/W/156) includes a summary of the history of efforts to 
eliminate consularization.  
4 WTO TFA Article 10.1 Formaliti es and Documentation Requirements  - With a view to minimizing the 
incidence and complexity of import, export, and transit formalities and to decreasing and simplifying import, 
export, and transit documentation requirements and taking into account the legit imate policy objectives and 
other factors such as changed circumstances, relevant new information, business practices, availability of 
techniques and technology, international best practices, and inputs from interested parties, each Member shall 
review suc h formalities and documentation requirements and, based on the results of the review, ensure, as 
appropriate, that such formalities and documentation requirements are:  
(a)  adopted and/or applied with a view to a rapid release and clearance of goods, parti cularly perishable 
goods;  
(b)  adopted and/or applied in a manner that aims at reducing the time and cost of compliance for traders 
and operators;  
(c)  the least trade restrictive measure chosen where two or more alternative measures are reasonably 
availab le for fulfilling the policy objective or objectives in question; and  
(d)  not maintained, including parts thereof, if no longer required.  G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 3 - 
 
  8. WTO Members must ask: what makes this consularization "essential" enough to require travel 
and in -person contact amidst a global health crisis? This service does not contribute to risk 
management processes upon importation, since diplomatic and c onsular officials rarely, if ever, have 
scientific and technical expertise. Shipments with consularized documentation are not exempt from 
physical inspections upon importation, so no customs or border process is served, and administrative 
steps are duplica ted. 
9. Now is the time to minimize the time, cost, and personal interactions necessary to swiftly 
move goods across borders. We call on all Member countries to reconsider the need to maintain such 
formalities. This process unduly burdens the private sector, especially MSMEs, in exchange for little 
to no tangible benefits for any parties involved other than the consular office itself.  
Consularization Disadvantages for MSMEs  
10. The costs and delays associated with consularization requirements have an inordinate im pact 
on MSME exporters.  These exporters have even fewer resources, including time and money, to 
devote to fulfilling all the bureaucratic steps associated with consularization requirements and to 
cover the costs associated with the process. Even in normal times, these types of procedures can 
often mean that the small business does not make the sale.  
11. For instance, a small business looking to export to a client in certain countries in the Middle 
East5 may be required to consularize commercial documents thro ugh a multistep process. Prior to 
even entering the embassy or consulate to receive the required rubber stamp, an exporter has to 
complete a number of onerous preparatory steps, including having all documents notarized by either 
the National U.S. -Arab Cham ber or a specific law firm. Each step requires the expenditure of precious 
resources in both time and cost (e.g., the cost of processing a single document, such as a commercial 
invoice, can exceed hundreds of dollars). Companies are often required to proce ss several 
commercial documents per shipment. This process can take a minimum of several days, but often 
much longer, excluding additional delays incurred by travel or delivery time.  
12. Although some countries have eased requirements in response to the COVID -19 pandemic, 
like accepting documents by mail, others have created additional obstacles. Some countries that 
maintain the requirement for in -person presentation only offer services by appointment. This can 
cause additional delays in processing.  
13. MSMEs cont inue to struggle with operating amid disrupted supply chains, hampered cross -
border mobility, and sharp increases in trade costs caused by the unprecedented global health crisis. 
Some are facing extreme resource constraints, while others have furloughed em ployees or closed 
altogether.  
14. For all WTO Members, MSMEs are the backbone of our economies. As we seek to support a 
global economic recovery, we all need to consider ways we can support those small businesses that 
are the source of growth and jobs so vital  to economic recovery. These efforts should extend to the 
elimination of customs -related formalities and requirements that place inordinate burden on MSMEs, 
especially those requirements that serve no legitimate import -related purpose. One small but 
import ant change that would be helpful is to eliminate consularization.  
 
5 The examples in this paper are based on the requirements found on the official webpages of WTO 
Member consulates an d embassies and regional affiliations: Kuwait: Commercial Documents, via Embassy of 
the State of Kuwait in Washington, DC ( https://www.kuwaitembassy.us/page/commercial -documents ); Unite d 
Arab Emirates: Commercial Invoices & Shipping Documents via the UAE Embassy in Washington, DC 
(https://www.uae -embassy.org/servic es-resources/legalization -documents/commercial -invoices -shipping -
documents ); Egypt: Authentication of Commercial Documents – Embassy of Egypt, Washington DC 
(http://www.egyptembassy.net/consular -services/legalization/commercial -legalization -procedure ); National 
US-Arab Chamber: Commercial Documents - National US -Arab Chamber of Commerce 
(http://ww w.nusacc.org/commercial.html ); Additional information: Commercial Invoice Legalization via the 
Arab American Chamber of Commerce ( https://www.arabchamber.com/commercial -invoice -legalization ). G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 4 - 
 
  How One WTO Member Eliminated its Consularization Requirements  
15. TFA Article 10.1.2 allows for the Committee to "develop procedures for the sharing by 
Members of relevant information and best practices, as appropriate". Members have consistently 
shared their experiences implementing the TFA since the Agreement went into force in 2017.  
Jordan was the first Member who provided information to Members regarding its decision to eliminate 
consularization requirements in an effort to streamline trade requirements. Jordan notified Members 
of this action on 25 August 2020, in the document, Elimination of Consularization Requirement 
(G/TFA/W/23) and introduced its notification during the October 2020 Committee meeting. We invite 
other Members to follow Jordan's example and share with the Committee their valuable experiences 
in the elimination of consularization requirements.  
 
Conclusion  
WTO Members should utilize the tools afforded to them in TFA Article 10.1 to review their trade 
requirements and minimize unnecessary and costly formalities, including consularization 
requirements. National Trade Facilitation Committees (NTFCs) can look to the private sector as a 
critical and important f irst step in identifying needless bottlenecks. The private sector and Members 
have identified consularization requirements as one such bottleneck because it fails to contribute to 
legitimate customs -related processes. Therefore, during this time of economi c global crisis, we call 
on Members to eliminate consularization requirements to fulfil their TFA Article 10.1 commitment to 
reduce and eliminated unnecessary and costly formalities.  
 
Attachment 1: TN/TF/W/156  
 G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 5 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM UGANDA AND THE UNITED STATES  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 11 July 2008, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Uganda and the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
 
PROHIBITING CONSULARIZATION REQUIREMENTS:  
FULFILLING A LONGSTANDING TRADE FACILITATION OBJECTIVE  
 
 
1. In a joint communication (TN/TF/W/104 of 10 May 2006), Uganda and the United States 
submitted a textual proposal proposing that "a Member shall not require a consular transaction, 
including any related fee or charge, in connection with the importation of any good".  Joint  submissions 
had been made earlier, proposing elements of a commitment of this nature (TN/TF/W/22 of 21 March 
2005 and TN/TF/W/86 of 4 April 2006).  
2. The proposal defines "consular transaction" (also sometimes referred to as "consularizat ion" or 
"legalization") as the procedure of obtaining from a consul of the importing Member in the territory of 
the exporting Member, or in the territory of a third party, a consular invoice or a consular visa for a 
commercial invoice, certificate of origi n, manifest, shippers' export declaration, or any other customs 
documentation in connection with the importation of the good.  
3. In light of the NGTF's move to more focused discussions of Member proposals, and to advance 
Members' understanding of the consu larization proposal, Uganda and the United States are  providing 
Members with additional information on the costs and burdens associated with consularization 
requirements, as well as the historical efforts to eliminate consularization.  
Costs and Burdens Ass ociated with Consularization  
 
4. The utility of consularization requirements has long been questioned, at least since 1923.  In  the 
modern trading environment they are clearly obsolete.  The fees and delays associated with 
consularization requirements have  an inordinate impact on exporters from developing -country 
Members – particularly least -developed and landlocked countries.  For small - and medium -sized 
enterprises (SMEs) from all Members, consularization requirements can present a barrier to market 
acces s in the following ways, among others:  
• Consularization requirements add unnecessary costs , contributing to higher prices for importers 
and consumers.  In some cases, consular fees amount to hundreds of dollars per shipment, which 
can exceed the invoice value of smaller consignments.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
 TN/TF/W/156  
14 July 2008  
 
 (08-3381)  
  Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation  Original:   English  G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 6 - 
 
  • Consularization  requirements cause unnecessary, time -consuming delays , not only as a result 
of the stamping and signing process, but also the need to travel to the nearest embassy or 
consulate, which may not always be located in the same city or country as the exporter, and the 
need to accommodate the working  hours of the consular office .  Such delays are generally 
unacceptable in an age where the delivery expectations of customers are demanding.  
 
• Furthermore, businesses report that consular requirements all too often pr esent a genesis for  
corruption , because of the inherent lack of transparency associated with the procedures.  
Frequently, it is unclear whether document A, B or both have to be legalized, and how many 
copies are needed.  The frequent practice of paying cas h for this formality, often without a clear 
basis for calculating the fees, presents opportunities for corruption.1  
 
5. For Uganda, a landlocked, least -developed country with an economy dependent on small -sized 
enterprises, consularization  has been a great barrier to access into markets of countries applying that 
requirement.  
6. Furthermore consularization requirements serve no discernible legitimate customs -related 
function.  Consularization does not contribute to risk management, nor can it be defended for reasons 
of health, environment and security.  Diplomatic and consular officials rarely, if ever, have scientific 
and technical expertise.  Further, such inspections are usually conducted by technical experts at the 
point of entry into th e importing Member and consularization requirements add an additional, unrelated 
burden.  
Historical Efforts  
 
7. In light of the costs and burdens associated with consularization requirements, there has been a 
long history of efforts to eliminate them, goin g back at least to 1923.  Elimination of consularization 
has been a persistent theme under the GATT and WTO since 1948.  Attachment 1 contains some key 
events in the nearly century -long effort to eliminate consularization requirements.  Notably, the  GATT 
CONTRACTING PARTIES recommended their elimination in decisions between 1952 and 1962 that 
remain in effect in the WTO today.2  
8. Despite steady progress, however, the GATT/WTO recommendation has not been fully 
implemented by all Members.  The fact that a few countries at any given time have not followed the 
recommendation has led to continued efforts by other countries over the years to eliminate the fees, 
whether bilaterally in regional trade agreements or multilaterally, including in the accession contex t.  
Eliminating consularization requirements would be a significant accomplishment of these trade 
facilitation negotiations.   
Conclusion  
 
9. Eliminating consularization requirements would result in cost savings to traders and 
administrators alike, and wou ld remove a practice that continues to prevent traders in developing 
countries and LDCs from enjoying the maximum benefits from the WTO Agreement and the results of 
the Doha Round negotiations (including the Trade Facilitation negotiations).  It would also  achieve a 
long-standing goal of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES and WTO Members.  
 
1 See "Legalisation of trade documents as an unnecessary trade barrier";  Statement from the Committee on international trade 
facilitation, NorStella, Norway.  
2 The Abolition of Consular Formalities, and Code of Standard Practices, Recommendation of 7 November 1952 (BISD 01S/25); 
Consular Formalities , Decision of 17 November 1956  (BISD 05S/33); Consular Formalities, Recommendation of 31 October 1962 (BISD 
11S/59) .  Article 1.b(iv) of the GATT 1994 incorporates the decisions of the CONTRACTING PARTIES; thus, the recommendation in the 
1952, 1956 and 1962 decisions to abolish consular formalities remains in effect.  G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Attachment 1  
 
Efforts to Abolish Import -Related Consular Formalities in the GATT and WTO  
•  
1923 :  International Convention Relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, Article 11(8) 
provides that consularization fees should be as low as possible. (Cited in US – Customs User Fees , 
BISD 35S/245, para. 71).  
 
1927 :  World Economic Conference a ffirms 1923 Convention on consularization fees, stating that such 
fees should be fixed, not exceed costs and not be a source of revenue.  (Cited in US – Customs User 
Fees, BISD 35S/245, para. 71)  
 
August 1948 :  The Chairman of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES states that consular taxes were 
covered by Articles I and VIII of the GATT.  (BISD II/12)  
 
November 1952 :  GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES recommend the abolition of consular formalities 
by 31 December 1956.  (BISD 01S/25)  
 
December 1954 :  A G ATT Technical Group examining the notifications of countries maintaining 
consular formalities notes that some progress towards the removal of consular fees had been made and 
expresses the hope those countries would gradually reduce existing measures and pr ovide for final 
elimination by December 31, 1956.  (BISD, 3S/91)  
 
November 1956 :  Only nine Contracting Parties continued to generally impose consular formalities.  
Seven other Contracting Parties maintained consular formalities only in a few exceptional 
circumstances.  (L/595 p.9)  
 
Just before the deadline for the abolition of consular formalities, the CONTRACTING PARTIES issue 
a Decision to maintain their 1952 recommendation.  They recommend that countries still applying 
consular formalities examine urgen tly the possibility of introducing measures to abolish or reduce them 
at the earliest possible date.  (BISD 05S/33)  
 
November 1957 :  The CONTRACTING PARTIES again reaffirm their recommendations of 1952 
regarding the abolition of consular formalities.  They  further recommend that consular invoices be 
abolished in favor of commercial invoices and that fees for certifying or visaing commercial documents 
be kept free -of-charge or at a nominal rate.  (BISD 06S/25)  
 
March 1962 :  A Panel of Experts on Consular For malities reported that Argentina, Chile, Cuba and the 
United States had suppressed entirely their previously expansive use of consular formalities.  Only eight 
Contracting Parties continue to normally require consular intervention in trade.  (L/1743 p. 2)  
 
October 1962 :  Ten years after the recommendation to abolish consular formalities, the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES again recommend that they be removed.  (BISD 11S/59)  
 
March 1966 :  Contracting Parties maintaining requirements for consular formalities were invited to 
report on their reasons for maintaining these requirements and on their future policy.  Six countries 
submitted reports, including one stating consular formalities had been removed.  (L/2563 and Add./1 -4) 
 
December 1969 :  Consular Fees & Formali ties were included on the Illustrative List of Non -Tariff 
Barriers to be addressed by the GATT Committee on Industrial Products.  (L/3298 p. 8)  
 
February 1971 :  The report of the GATT Committee on Industrial Products Working Group on Customs 
and Administr ative Entry Procedures summarizes the proposal of countries not maintaining consular G/TFA/W/38/Rev.3  
 
- 8 - 
 
  formalities to phase out consular formalities and fees over five years and a maximum flat -rate cap in 
the interim.  (L/3496, p. 12)  
 
November 1988 :  The Uruguay Round Neg otiating Group on Non -Tariff Measures includes consular 
formalities in the category of measures proposed for a multilateral rule -making approach.  
(MTN.GNG/13 p.6)  
 
May 1989 :  The Secretariat prepared a background note on Customs and Consular Formalities f or the 
Negotiating Group on Non -Tariff Measures, recording past efforts in the GATT and elsewhere to 
abolish consular formalities, which continued to be perceived as a barrier to trade.  
(MTN.GNG/NG2/W/29)   
 
June 1989 :  A study prepared for the Working Pa rty on Facilitation of International Trade Procedures 
of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and submitted to the Negotiating Group on 
Non-Tariff Measures recommends that appropriate steps be taken to press for the abolition of consular 
forma lities.  (MTN.GNG/NG2/W/34)  
 
January 1995 :  The GATT 1994 entered into force.  Article 1.b(iv) incorporates the decisions of the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES; thus, the recommendation in the 1952, 1956 and 1962 decisions to abolish 
consular formalities remains in e ffect.    
 
March 2005 :  Uganda and the United States submit a proposal to prohibit import -related consular 
requirements to the Doha Round Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, followed up with proposed 
text in May 2006. (TN/TF/W/22; TN/TF/W/104)  
 
Novembe r 2005 :  Egypt reports in a national experience communication to the Negotiating Group on 
Trade Facilitation that consular fees and invoices were phased out by a Ministerial Decree in 2005.  
(TN/TF/W/75)  
 
2003 -2006 :  Notifications of Non -Tariff Barriers to  the Negotiating Group on Market Access include 
consular formalities measures (e.g. TN/MA/W/46/Add. 1 -17). 
 
__________